ABSTRACT
Abstract: COVID-19 is most well-known for causing respiratory pathology. It can also result in other organ involvement. These include thrombotic complications like myocardial infarction and stroke. Cardiac arrhythmias, acute kidney injury, gastrointestinal symptoms, hepatocellular injury, pancreatitis, neurologic disorders including demyelination, endocrine issues like hyperglycemia and ketosis have been reported. Individually and in combination, these can add to mortality and morbidity. This review is primarily focussing on the potential life threatening problems that physicians can encounter during the course of COVID 19 patients’ stay in intensive care unit. Electronic literature search was done to study COVD-19 and its pathophysiology, different organ involvement other than lungs, ICU management and mortality. The search engines used to conduct the electronic literature searches were PubMed, PubMed Central, Google Scholar and CAS. A combination of keywords was used to make the searches such as COVID-19 AND (Pathology OR Pathophysiology OR Complications OR Organ failure OR Intensive care OR Risk factors OR Mortality).The articles published in English language between the years 2019 and 2020 were considered in the review. Few cross references of previous years were also reviewed and included. The findings of these studies were synthesized into a narrative review.

ABSTRACT
Abstract: Raised levels of D-dimer have been noted in patients with COVID-19. The existing evidence emplies that the highest levels of D-dimer in the critically ill Covid-19 patient shows a linear relationship between the D-dimer measurement and the severity of the disease. However, that should also mean a patient on the road to recovery would have decrease in pro-thrombotic state and hence lower D-dimer readings. This study hypothesized that D-dimer trend would start to return towards normal as patients recovered from this illness. The present study included 43 patients with COVID-19 infection treated in the ICU at Khoula Hospital, Muscat, Oman from 10th May to 5th August 2020. Six readings of D-dimer were taken from the time of admission of Covid-19 npatient to their discharge from the ICU or demise. The data was statistically analyzed using generalized linear model, paired ‘t’ test and Wilcoxon Signet Ranks test. D-dimer demonstrated a statistically significant difference by the value of 4 μg/ml in patients who were eventually extubated compared to those who died while in the ICU, despite that, as a trend over time was insignificant. In conclusion, this study suggests that D-dimer would be noteworthy in assessing severity as a single time-point, however not as a prognostic value in evaluating improvement of critically ill patients of COVID-19.

ABSTRACT
Abstract: Introduction: Colonoscopy may be a mildly painful procedure requiring conscious sedation. Though propofol may be a widely used anesthetic in day-care procedures thanks to its rapid onset and quick recovery features a drawback of requiring resuscitation maneuvers more often than the traditional methods. Dexmedetomidine, a newly introduced, highly selective α2 adrenergic receptor agonist possessing hypnotic, sedative, anxiolytic, sympatholytic, and analgesic properties with impressive margin of safety, must be explored to be used in conscious sedation for colonoscopy procedure among Bangladeshi population. Objective: To find out the comparison between propofol and dexmedetomidine for conscious sedation in patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopy. Materials and Methods: A prospective randomized comparative study was conducted on patients aged between 25 and 60 years with the American Society of Anesthesiologist physical status classes I and II posted for colonoscopy under monitored anesthesia Dept. LABAID Specialized Hospital, Dhanmondi, Dhaka, Bangladesh from January 2018 to December 2019. Study group was randomly divided into two groups and administered propofol and dexmedetomidine. The primary outcome variable was assessments of sedation scores between the two groups. Secondary outcome variables were pain score assessments, hemodynamic comparisons, and adverse events among the two groups. Appropriate statistical tests were applied to compare the findings. Results: After comparisons between the two groups, we found that...................